Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: Why Google Chromecast isn't quite Apple TV... yet - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Why Google Chromecast isn't quite Apple TV... yet

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 24 July 2013 - 02:25 PM

Post your comments for Why Google Chromecast isn't quite Apple TV... yet here
0

#2 User is offline   ingus 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 514
  • Joined: 06-August 12

  Posted 24 July 2013 - 02:42 PM

"you can stomp your Android phone under foot and the video will continue of its merry way"

Whereas stomping on your iPhone will correctly cause the video to stop.-lol
It IS about the experience, isn't it... :)
I'm more of a "Woz" guy...
1

#3 User is offline   john404324bt 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 21-August 12

  Posted 24 July 2013 - 02:51 PM

the site these days dont even care about experience all they care is "apple sell we buy it beats everything out there"
0

#4 User is offline   wesley96 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 18-August 05

  Posted 24 July 2013 - 04:40 PM

john404324bt said:

the site these days dont even care about experience all they care is "apple sell we buy it beats everything out there"

I bought Apple TV primarily to wirelessly mirror screen and contents from iOS devices and Mac. From the article, this Chromecast cannot do this yet. So it's pretty obvious that it is no Apple TV and the experience is clearly different. This isn't Apple bias - it's just telling it like what it is.
0

#5 User is offline   wg45678 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: 25-April 08

  Posted 24 July 2013 - 06:09 PM

Or for $99 get a Roku 3. Does everything (nearly) that AppleTV does (and a lot of things it doesn't). And far more than this device. Plus the description of ChromeCast functionality seems a lot like the TwonkyBeam app on the Roku.
0

#6 User is offline   jogiba 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 21-June 10

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:38 AM

wg45678 said:

Or for $99 get a Roku 3. Does everything (nearly) that AppleTV does (and a lot of things it doesn't). And far more than this device. Plus the description of ChromeCast functionality seems a lot like the TwonkyBeam app on the Roku.

With no youtube support Roku 3 is a showstopper for me.
0

#7 User is offline   JohnBarnes 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 06-June 12

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:07 AM

Quote

At $35 (along with three free months of Netflix, bringing the actual cost down to $11.03)


No, you still have to pay $35 so the actual cost is $35. Free Netflix does not reduce the cost.

That aside, this is an interesting device. I'm curious to see how they enhance the experience and how it affects competition in this space.
0

#8 User is offline   pmhobbs 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 25-July 13

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:31 AM

Or for $99 get a Roku 3. Does everything (nearly) that AppleTV does (and a lot of things it doesn't). And far more than this device. Plus the description of ChromeCast functionality seems a lot like the TwonkyBeam app on the Roku. With no youtube support Roku 3 is a showstopper for me. [/quote]
0

#9 User is offline   pmhobbs 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 25-July 13

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:32 AM

You can get Youtube on Roku. It is a private channel. The code is B8VVK
0

#11 User is offline   HighTechGeek 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 25-July 13

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 05:47 AM

What a useless article. ChromeCast isn't Apple TV. You may as well write an article entitled: "Why a fork isn't quite a food processor... yet". Not everyone needs a food processor to eat. And not everyone needs a 3-times-the-price Apple TV to watch video.

You say, "but that’s a far cry from being able to stream a movie or TV show stored on your phone or tablet to your TV." as if this is some major shortcoming. Who the hell stores TV shows or movies on their phone? You better have a pocket full of SD cards... Oh yeah, iPhones can't use those... oops.
2

#12 User is offline   wardoggie 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 1,952
  • Joined: 02-September 04

Posted 25 July 2013 - 07:48 AM

View PostHighTechGeek, on 25 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

What a useless article. ChromeCast isn't Apple TV. You may as well write an article entitled: "Why a fork isn't quite a food processor... yet". Not everyone needs a food processor to eat. And not everyone needs a 3-times-the-price Apple TV to watch video.

You say, "but that’s a far cry from being able to stream a movie or TV show stored on your phone or tablet to your TV." as if this is some major shortcoming. Who the hell stores TV shows or movies on their phone? You better have a pocket full of SD cards... Oh yeah, iPhones can't use those... oops.

I do. My 32GB iPhone 4 is a little cramped, but I have a few TV shows on it for when I'm bored. I store a lot more movies and photos on my computers. I can already access the content on my media mac on my PS3, along with most of the services listed. So the only reason I want another device plugged into my TV is screen-sharing (aka, AirPlay) capabilities.
1

#13 User is offline   Bostongreekgeek 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 25-July 13

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 07:53 AM

JohnBarnes said:

At $35 (along with three free months of Netflix, bringing the actual cost down to $11.03) No, you still have to pay $35 so the actual cost is $35. Free Netflix does not reduce the cost. That aside, this is an interesting device. I'm curious to see how they enhance the experience and how it affects competition in this space.


If you are already paying for netflix it is a savings since you get the 3 months free so it is 11 dollars...if you did not have netflix..you are correct..its a gimmick that makes you sign up for netflix..but i would have paid those 3 months regardless and now it slike im getting a chrmoecast for 11 bucks for extending my netflix subscritpion for 3 months...

This article is just made to make people feel better about supporting apple products and make them avoid using a non apple product and see how other devices can do just as much or often more for less money..when people realise this apple will either have to lower their prices to match competition or fail miserably.

Its not that Apple doesnt make good products..its that they are overpriced...soon people will realize this.
0

#14 User is offline   wardoggie 

  • Veteran
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 1,952
  • Joined: 02-September 04

Posted 25 July 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostBostongreekgeek, on 25 July 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Its not that Apple doesnt make good products..its that they are overpriced...

Overpriced? hahahaha, nope.
0

#15 User is offline   superm1 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 25-July 13

  Posted 25 July 2013 - 09:01 AM

JohnBarnes said:

At $35 (along with three free months of Netflix, bringing the actual cost down to $11.03) No, you still have to pay $35 so the actual cost is $35. Free Netflix does not reduce the cost. That aside, this is an interesting device. I'm curious to see how they enhance the experience and how it affects competition in this space.

For any home that is already subscribed (or planning to subscribe) it certainly does.
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users